UNITED TAYABAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE- CHAIRMAN, MIGDONIO C. CAILING, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. QUEZON METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS …
DIMAAMPAO, J.:
In its Petition,2 the appellant alleged that on 23 April 1999, the appellee passed and approved Board Resolution No. 99-42,3 increasing the water rates to be paid by all water concessionaires of Tayabas, Quezon, without conducting a public hearing for that purpose. It contended that this is a clear violation of Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 700 dated 1 June 19784 and of the Compromise Agreement dated 7 March 1991.5 Appellant asserted that since the appellee acted without, or in excess of its authority, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 99-42, the same should be declared null and void.
Traversing the allegations of the appellant, the appellee maintained that a public hearing was held on 16 October 19986, which, as shown by an attendance sheet7, was attended by appellant himself, Migdonio Cailing, along with the chairman and members of the United Tayabas Multi-Purpose Cooperative. It averred that prior to the implementation of the subject water increase, it posted the required notices in conspicuous places of Tayabas, Quezon8 and attached the same to the monthly billings of each concessionaire.9 It pointed out that the appellant’s claim that the increase in water rate being implemented under Board Resolution No. 99-42 was void for being sixty percent (60%) more than which is allowed by law, was not alleged in the subject petition. At any rate, the appellee asserted that Board Resolution No. 99-42 was in accord with all the pertinent laws specifically LOI No. 700 and the rate increase was accordingly approved by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) after thorough evaluation. Consequently, the appellee argued that should there have been any question relative to the LWUA’s decision, an appeal should have been lodged with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB)10 pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 424,11 in relation to P.D. Nos. 106712 and 1026.13 The appellant having failed to exhaust the administrative remedies before coming to court, the petition should therefore be dismissed.
On 25 June 2003, the court a quo dismissed the subject petition for lack of merit.
Finding the foregoing Decision unacceptable, the appellant interposed the instant appeal raising this single issue, thus:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT REGARDING THE INSTANT PETITION AS FALLING UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
The Appeal is devoid of merit.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors at the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review.14 The rationale of this rule rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly.15 It allows said administrative body to carry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialized area of its competence.16 The strict application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies will also prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court.17 This rule however, is not absolute. There are instances when the application of this doctrine may be dispensed with and judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among the established exceptions are:
- when the question raised is purely legal;
- when the administrative body is in estoppel;
- when the act complained of is patently illegal;
- when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
- when the claim involved is small;
- when irreparable damage will be suffered;
- when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
- when strong public interest is involved;
- when the subject of the controversy is private land; and
- in quo warranto proceedings.”18
In the case at bench, the appellant posits that Resolution No 99-42 runs counter to the provisions of paragraphs 1(f) and 5 of LOI No. 700 dated 1 June 1978, viz:
“1. xxx xxx
(f) Ensure that the water rates are not abruptly increased beyond the water users’ ability to pay, seeing to it that each increase if warranted, does not exceed 60% of the current rate.
2. The water district concerned shall conduct public hearings prior to any proposed increase in water rates.”
Appellant asseverates that a computation of the rate increases provided in the subject Resolution eventually shows that, based on a monthly consumption of 50 cu. m. of water of an ordinary water concessionaire, there is a 91.35% increase in excess of the present rates. Moreover, the water rates provided in the said Resolution covered a period of seven (7) years from August 1999 to 2006. Appellant claims that the series of increases enumerated therein should not have been embodied in one resolution alone since the water concessionaires of Tayabas, Quezon would ultimately be deprived of the opportunity to voice their opposition thereto. Furthermore, the appellant insists that the public hearing conducted on 16 October 1998 was not for the purpose of increasing the water rates but for submitting the Total Rehabilitation Plan of the Water System of Tayabas, Quezon. Said public hearing made no mention about the multiple increases of water rates to be imposed for the period from 1999 to 2006. Appellant insists that since it was not questioning the rates per se as stated in the subject Resolution but rather, whether or not the Resolution conforms with the requisite and mandate of the aforequoted provisions of law, the dispute now becomes a question of law and should not fall within the jurisdiction of LWUA and NWRB. This being so, appellant maintains that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable.
We are not persuaded.
A careful perusal of the appellant’s petition shows that aside from its claim that no public hearing was held, it also assails the increase in water rates. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition are quoted hereunder:
“7. That said Resolution No. 99-42 of the QMWD, unless effectively restrained, will entail additional expenses on the part of water concessionaires of Tayabas, Quezon, especially the low-income groups who consume more or less 50 cu. m. of water every month, that would amount to P100.00 more or less for year 1999, P215.00 more or less for 2000, P524 more or less for year 2001, P548.00 more or less for year 2002, and P600.00 more or less for the years 2003 up to 2006; thus, a water concessionaire consuming 100 cu. m. of water a month will cost P1,200.00, more or less, which amount will even be greater than the monthly electric bill and will be beyond the water users’ ability to pay, especially the poor and/or marginally subsistent families and, as a result, would cause grave and irreparable financial injuries to the petitioner as well as to all the other water concessionaires of Tayabas, Quezon;
8. That the respondent increased the water rates being questioned in this petition without any legal basis and without any urgent necessity or justification, to the detriment of the water concessionaires of Tayabas, Quezon;”19
From the foregoing allegations, appellant obviously questions the increases in the water rates. Besides, it is evident that before a determination could be made on whether or not the appellee violated paragraph 1(f) of LOI No. 700, a resolution stating that said increases exceed 60% of the current rate should first be passed. This act clearly calls for the competence of an administrative agency concerned, which in this case, is the NWRB, the water rate increases having been approved by LWUA already.20 The petition having raised the propriety of increases in the water rates, We hold and so rule that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is still applicable.
Anent the appellant’s claim that the increase in the water rates was approved without public hearing, suffice it to state that the minutes of the 16 October 1998 meeting clearly revealed that a public hearing was indeed held, thus:
“V. LWUA Management Development Chief, Ms. Noemi Tan comprehensively deliberated the details and breakdown of the Provincial Cities Water Supply Project funded by OECF through LWUA by discussing the Computation of Financing Requirement at 18.5% interest as well as the total loanable amount intended for Tayabas Project which is P56.17 M, payable within 26 years. Further, she also mentioned to the body the 10% escalation cost and also put emphasis on the proposed water rates for Tayabas Water Supply System as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
Ms. Tan emphasized the importance of the district cooperation in putting up a P7M worth of equity contribution and this can be achieved through a water rate increase in Tayabas.
x x x x x x x x x
She reiterated that Power Cost Adjustment, Fuel Cost Adjustment, Labor Cost Adjustment and Foreign Exchange-Cost Adjustment are not mandatory to the water district and will only be used during emergency situation or if there is an economic crisis. She also made comparative analysis of water rates among water districts in Quezon province and answered questions pertaining to water rates increase as follows:
– that water rates increase should not exceed 60% of present rates;
– that there is corresponding limitation to be considered for average income and for low-income groups;
– that all increases are subject to LWUA approval as said entity conducts periodic review whether water rates hike projected at the public hearing conforms to the present situation.
x x x x x x x x x
At this instance, the Master of Ceremonies requested the body to stand up and affirm their decision whether they are amenable with the total rehabilitation of Tayabas water supply system and the corresponding water rates that go along with it. Majority of the body unanimously voted for the proposed QMWD project to be funded under the OECF 20th Yen Credit Package.”21
In the light of the tenor of the foregoing minutes of the meeting and the fact that appellant’s representative was present thereat, appellant’s assertion that no public hearing was held regarding the approval of the water rate increases deserves no merit.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 25 June 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Buzon, and Maambong, JJ., concur.
1 Original Record, pp. 198-200.
2 Original Record, pp. 1-4.
3 Id., p. 22.
4 Id., pp. 8-10.
5 Id., pp. 12-13.
6 Id., pp. 29-32.
7 Id., pp. 33-35.
8 Id., pp. 47-49.
9 Id., p. 46.
10 See Position Paper for the Respondent, Original Record, p. 43.
11 Creating a National Water Resources Council, Reconstituting its Membership, Vesting the Same with Powers to Coordinate and Integrate Water Resources Development and Providing Funds Therefor.
12 A Decree Instituting a Water Code, Thereby Revising and Consolidating the Laws Governing the Ownership, Appropriation, Utilization, Exploitation, Development, Conservation and Protection of Water Resources; the Appellee cited wrongly as P.D. No. 1076 in its pleadings.
13 Wrongly cited since P. D. No. 1026 is entitled “Amending P.D. No. 797 by Inserting a New Section, Section 5 after Section 4 Thereof.
14 Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center, 456 SCRA 459, 472 (2005).
15 Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, 452 SCRA 278, 284 (2005).
16 Morcal v. Laviña, 476 SCRA 508, 512 (2005).
17 Supra at note 15.
18 Supra at note 16, p. 513.
19 Original Record, pp. 2-3.
20 See Marilao Water Consumers Association, Inc. v. IAC, 201 SCRA 437; Section 11 of P.D. No. 1479.
21 Original Record, pp. 29-32.